...
Ping to the Sultan Knish articles!
“You Can't Sue Over Election Fraud Before, During or After the Election”
By Daniel Greenfield, The Sultan Knish
Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center, is a New York writer focusing on radical Islam.
Ping or FReepmail me to get on or off the Daniel Greenfield Ping! list.
Be sure and visit Frontpage Mag for excellent commentary.
“You Can't Sue Over Election Fraud Before, During or After the Election”
... Unless You Are a Democrat.
What will anyone do about it? Break windows? Loot? Pout? Boycott Georgia, Vegas, Zona, Michigan, the City of Love?
“You better not catch me!
You better not catch me!
No fair catching meee.” - Bill Cosby’s wife when playing chase.
“Standing” is one of the most powerful judicial tools in existence.
In theory, you can deny a murder charge by claiming the victim did not have standing. It would be bat crap nuts, but it is possible.
Law is just words on paper. What men with badges and guns do is what matter.
I get the feeling all these judges that are rejecting the lawsuits are saying that the time for the judciary was before the election, now that the election is over it's up to the legislative branch through impeachment.Before the primaries we made the case.
They said it wasn't the right time because he wasn't actually his party's candidate.Before the main election we made the case.
They said it wasn't the right time because he wasn't actually the president elect.Before the electoral college vote we made the case.
They said it wasn't the right time because he hadn't actually been elected until the electoral college said so.Before the congress accepted the electoral college vote we made the case.
They said it wasn't the right time because he hadn't actually been approved until the congress accepted the electoral college vote.Before was sworn in we made the case.
They said it wasn't the right time because he hadn't actually violated the constitution until he became president.Now that he is in the White House, they say it's too late, you should have said something sooner!
If voting could change anything they would not let us do it...
All of plaintiffs claims are based on theories.
Another clear case of a judge who studied law between lunch and dinner.
When should you file a lawsuit over an election? If you're a Democrat, the answer is at any time. But if you're a Republican the answer is never.Here's February, 2020.
A federal judge, this week, ruled against Gov. Brian Kemp in a lawsuit filed against him in 2018, while he was still Secretary of State. According to the suit, Kemp, in his role as secretary of state, was accused of using a racially-biased methodology for removing as many as 700,000 legitimate voters from the state's voter rolls during a period between 2016 and 2018.In her conclusion, the judge said she is considering a summary judgment finding against Kemp and considering full access to the 2016 and 2017 Crosscheck lists to Palast and Butler.
This element of the article is misleading at best.
Palast v. Kemp, GAND 18-cv-04809-ELR, was not an election case but a freedom of information case seeking Interstate Voter Registration Crosscheck lists from 2016 and 2017 brought under the Georgia Open Records Act.
The cited February 2020 ruling (case document #25) was not on deciding any issue on the merits but about Kemp's motion for a summary judgment dismissal of the case.
As the court stated at 5, "The motion should be granted only if no rational fact finder could return a verdict in favor of the non-moving party." In ruling on the motion, the court stated at 7, "While it is true that the record is devoid of any evidence that Defendant actually has the lists in its possession, the evidence in the record sufficiently calls into question whether Georgia utilized the lists as a tool to aid in determining or ensuring the 'accurracy and currency of list of eligible voters' as contemplated by NVRA."
At 10, the court stated, "The Court finds that summary judgment in favor of the Defendant is inappropriate and that Plaintiffs are entitled to access to the 2016 and 2017 Crosscheck lists. Therefore, the Court now considers entering summary judgment in favor of Plaintiffs sua sponte pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 56(f). As such, the Court PLACES Defendant on notice that it is considering entering summary judgment in favor of Plaintiff."
Document 26 was Kemp's response in opposition to summary judgment for plaintiff.
Prolonged litigation followed until the case was dismissed. Below is the end of the Docket Report:
08/28/2020 51 Consent MOTION to Stay Pending Dismissal by Greg Palast and Helen Butler. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Spears, George) Modified on 8/31/2020 to edit filer and modify text (jpk). (Entered: 08/28/2020)09/01/2020 52 ORDER denying 51 Consent Motion to Stay Pending Dismissal. Upon review, the Court DENIES the Parties' motion. Instead of staying the case, the Court will direct the Clerk to administratively close the case. The Court notes that administrative closure does not affect the rights of either Party. Accordingly, the Court DIRECTS the Clerk to ADMINISTRATIVELY CLOSE this case. The Parties shall file a stipulation of dismissal upon finalization of the requisite documents. If settlement fails, the Parties should promptly move to reopen the case. Signed by Judge Eleanor L. Ross on 8/31/2020. (jpk) (Entered: 09/01/2020)
09/01/2020 Civil Case Terminated. (jpk) (Entered: 09/01/2020)
10/13/2020 53 STIPULATION of Dismissal by Greg Palast. (Spears, George) (Entered: 10/13/2020)
While it is true that the Court stated it was considering summary judgment in favor of plaintiffs, following Defendant's response in opposition, summary judgment was not granted to plaintiff Palast, and, in the end, Palast's case was dismissed. The case itself was about a request for copies of Interstate Voter Registration Crosscheck lists from 2016 and 2017 brought under the Georgia Open Records Act.
And then we can drag them out into the sunlight and fresh air and burn down their sacred temple of meaninglessness.